Just to emphasise again (In agreement with you, as far as I understand) that I don't find the meme idea particularly 'solid'. Nor do I find that it tells us much more than we knew already. (We already knew certain ideas get passed on, and some better than others - right? Or at least I'm sure most of us did. I mean - who requires the construction of a biological analogy / idea with biological roots to realise that obvious truth?!)
I just don't find the idea 'absurd' - that's all. And I think it is quite a neat analogy - which is all I accept it as at this point. Although I also agree that it's main purpose may well be to declare religious ideas as 'viruses' - which is an entirely 'loaded' judgment. I think that (arguable) abuse doesn't have to affect the overall idea of a 'meme'. (Which - as we have said, is not owned by religion, and is - as a concept - morally neutral).
I'm not defending the idea of religion as a 'mind virus'. I'm not even defending the 'morally neutral' idea of a 'meme' as 'reality'.
I'm only arguing that it makes sense in many respects, and that it isn't 'absurd'. (Just as you would argue that the very concept of God isn't 'absurd', and that's a position that I respect...)
If I decided that memes were - indeed - a bunch of tosh, that fact wouldn't reasonably alter anything about what I believe, or my attitude to anything. I treat them purely as an intellectual curiosity.
Just wanna be very clear on my position - as we continue...
dartagnan wrote:So does the belief in God. Like memes, the existence of God cannot be observed, tested or measured. It is a belief that doesn't pass the scientific method.
I see where you are going with that, and I accept the point. No real argument from me.
dartagnan wrote:RenegadeOfPhunk wrote:I'm not so sure this is a valid attack on the concept. Computer viruses would seem to be a clear example of 'information-based' viruses that 'infiltrate' systems and have no inherent 'matter'.
Well, computer viruses are programs that consist of bits of information which are transferred on a river of electricty. We have the means to see viruses as packets of binary information, and we can also remove them. We know they exist. Memes, on the other hand, are invisible. Yet, Dawkins presumes to be able to speak on their attributes, such as their ability to "leap from brain to brain," and "replicate" themselves.
This comment wasn't refering to Dawkins confidence in specifying all kinds of things about 'memes', nor was I suggesting that we have 'discovered' them in any meaningful way.
All I was responsing to was this specific comment:
"The argument should be considered absurd on its face because viruses consist of matter, yet ideas passing through the social system (memes) do not take on ontological substance."
I'm arguing agaisnt the idea that the 'meme' concept should be considered 'absurd' just because it tries to deal with some 'entity' that (apparently) has no physical form. That is all I was arguing at that point. It don't think it can be considered 'absurd' on those grounds given that we know of other 'virus-like' entities - with no physical form - that exist in other types of 'system'.
I also want to point out that computer viruses are called viruses because they replicate themselves. Memes replicate, but they don't do it themselves.
If you mean in the sense of 'the program has the progotive of replication built into it', yes I see that. And it is an important point. I get more into that later...
Suppose I tell a group of five kids about a picture I imagine in my head. A star with six points and a yellow center with bright white rays coming out of its tips. According to Dawkins, I would have just released a meme from my brain which penetrated theirs. Three of the kids then decide to draw the picture as they understood my description. The result is that the picture in my head was copied three times. But the meme didn't replicate itself, now did it?
Well, first of all, I'd note that the idea doesn't appear to be a very good replicator, regardless of what is held - in the end - 'responsible' for replicating it.
However, if you were telling the group of kids of a 'star with six points and a yellow center with bright white rays coming out of its tips' and then - as an additional piece of information - you told them that every time you teach someone else how to draw this symbol, it will make them 'smarter'...
...now that - to me - would be an idea that encouraged 'replication'.
Take another example:
A. "A stitch in time saves nine"
B. In some cases, the effectiveness of performing an action depends greatly on the timing of that action. Perform an action early, and it can be very effective. But perform it too late, and it can be very ineffective.
Now, both A and B propose the same basic idea. But A - in my opinion - is a far better candidate for a 'meme' than B. Because it is something that is easily remembered, and easily reproducible. We humans find some arrangements of words and sounds more attractive than others, and are more likely to retain them and recite them to others. And of course, there is a reason to recite it and 'pass it on'. It is because it could be considered to be 'good advice'.
...to be very clear - I'm not suggesting some hard-link between the above concept and religion! I'm just trying to make the distinction between what I see as 'just any old random concept', and a 'meme'. (As I understand it).
Seems to me - as I look at this concept - that there are different strengths of 'meme'. Strong memes vs. weak memes lets say. Some just happen to be easy to reproduce, and so they tend to. Others actually have some idea of reproducibility embedded within the concept itself...
But the meme didn't replicate itself, now did it?
In the sense you mean here, no. I'm pretty sure I agree.
To analogise with computer viruses further - I would see your example of teaching some kids an image - and that's it - would be akin to downloading some minor program onto one or more computers. Something to view a document, or play a game. Whatever. If the program isn't meant to do anything other than sit on that one computer and 'do something', then it couldn't be reasonably described as a 'virus'.
The program has to - in some way - 'push' the copying of itself - or have some good reason to get replicated - into another system as well...
Another important distinction here is that computers are not 'social' in the same way humans are.
Computers 'communicate'. They can be networked to each-other. But computers don't - off their own intuition - have conversations like:
Computer A: "Hey - how ya doin'?"
Computer B: "Not bad. Not bad. Hey - I've got a great new program installed. You want it?"
Computer A: "Sure. Send us over the instillation package..."
...I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't approve of this kind of behaviour! ;)
If computers DID regularly do stuff like this, then programs that didn't actively 'attempt' to 'copy themselves' could end up being 'replicated' regardless...
or in computer science, a virus that is designed to write a duplicate copy of itself.
Indeed. The 'intention' of a computer virus is to copy itself.
The reason your example didn't appear very effective - in my opinion - wasn't because the idea of a meme isn't a viable one. I think it's because the example didn't seem to have much of a concept of 'replication' built into it.
The brain is not a computer.
When I made the comment this replies to, I was more referring to the earlier concept of memes being 'absurd' because they have no physical form. I agree that trying to view the human brain in the same way as an average 'computer' is problematic, and in fact highly simplistic. But what isn't problematic is saying that the human brain is made of 'matter'. That was the only firm point I was making there...
I can take apart a computer and tell you how each component works, and why.
Yes. We humans designed and built them, so there's not a whole lot of 'mystery' there...
However, give a laptop to an ancient Greek, and I'm sure they would view it as a veritable treasure trove of 'mystery' - waiting to be discovered...
As far as the human brain and 'consciousness' - well, I'm really not sure where you are going there. I'd like to hear more detail from you, and about the Roy Varghese quote. The human brain is a hugely complex organ. I personally can see no reason why it is not complex enough to account for consciousness.
True, we have a lot more to learn and to understand about it, but the 'direction of discovery' seems to only be going one way. We understand the brain far better than we did in the past, and the brain (according to all evidence) whilst hugely complex, is a 'finite' piece of kit...
Looking at Roy Vargheses statement:
"First of all, neurons show no resemblance to our conscious life."
Well, I see the statement: neurons show no resemblance to our conscious life. But I don't see the reasoning. He just makes the statement, without telling us WHY neurons 'show no resemblance' to our conscious life. Instead, he just moves straight onto the 'second point'.
Is there more from him you can post in to embellish his point?
"Consciousness is correlated with certain regions of the brain, but when the same systems of neurons are present in the brain stem there is no 'production' of consciousness..."
Well, there are all kinds of different types of jobs different parts of my computer do. All quite distinct from each-other. But they are all based on basic building blocks like microprocessors, transistors, resistors and capacitors...
...just because 'basic building blocks' are used in various areas of the brain, doesn't mean that those different areas can't be doing quite different things - right...?
The "wait and see" approach has worn out its flavor.
Obviously demonstrates the gulf between our viewpoints I guess. I'd say we've been continually gaining understanding of 'consciousness' through the sciences for quite a while now. The only distinction I'd make is that there is still plenty to learn...
If the brain were some block of wood, then I'd be quite happy to look somewhere else. But it isn't, and we can see brain activity happening in relation to ALL kinds of conscious thoughts and activities... We can and HAVE been investigating such activity quite steadily and happily.